First a major Republican, Tex. Rep. Joe Barton, publicly apologized to BP because President Obama forced them to set up an escrow account to pay for the massive destruction they are causing the USA. Then a bunch of other Republicans chimed in, including Tea Partiers, to defend BP and attack the president. Then they seemed to realize how bad they looked, how owned by the oil companies they looked, so they made Barton apologize. But what is wrong with these people? How clueless do you have to be to apologize to BP and attack the president for demanding BP's accountability in the first place? The Republican party has gone insane.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37759828/ns/disaster_in_the_gulf/

Quote:

Republican forced to apologize for BP apology
Texas' Barton called deal with Obama a 'shakedown, isn't alone in GOP

WASHINGTON — A Texas Republican's apology to BP CEO Tony Hayward that the company had to agree to a $20 billion fund for oil spill damage claims nearly cost him a key House committee position on Thursday.

Rep. Joe Barton was forced to recant by House minority leaders outraged at the vision of an American lawmaker apologizing at a congressional hearing to a foreign head of a corporation that had caused great hardships for millions of Gulf Coast residents.

"I'm speaking totally for myself, I'm not speaking for the Republican party ... but I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday," Barton had told Hayward during opening statements before the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on investigations.

He called it "a tragedy of the first proportion, that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown, a $20 billion shakedown."
...
But Barton is not alone among Republicans on his initial statement.

At the hearing Thursday, Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, returned to the propriety of the $20 billion escrow fund: "I have serious questions about the setup of this fund."

Another member of the GOP leadership, Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a group of conservative House members, used the same "shakedown" language Wednesday in describing the escrow fund.
...
"BP's reported willingness to go along with the White House's new fund suggests that the Obama Administration is hard at work exerting its brand of Chicago-style shakedown politics," Price said in a statement.

He said the White House does not have the legal authority to compel a private company to set up and fund an escrow account.

"These actions are emblematic of a politicization of our economy that has been borne out of this administration's drive for greater power and control," Price said.

'Redistribution-of-wealth fund'
Former Texas Rep. Dick Armey, a leading voice in the conservative Tea Party movement, told a Christian Science Monitor breakfast this week that Obama lacks the constitutional authority to set up such a fund.

"The Constitution doesn't give that authority to the executive branch.... There are courts for this purpose," Armey said, according to the Dallas Morning News.

In addition, conservative Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota was quoted as telling the Heritage Foundation think tank Tuesday that the escrow account was a "redistribution-of-wealth fund."

"And now it appears like we'll be looking at one more gateway for more government control, more money to government," she said, according to the Minnesota Independent.

Big Oil contributions
Barton is the biggest recipient of oil and gas industry campaign contributions in the House of Representatives, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

deanhills

When I read the article I only read Barton apologizing, no one else. So why the plural? In my opinion, Barton's attacking the President was just as bad as the President attacking BP publicly, and both were doing it for the same reason, making political capital. Obama's speech did nothing to unite people, instead everyone bickered even more after his speech than before it.

ocalhoun

handfleisch wrote:

The Republican party has gone insane.

Yes, the sane party keeps it a secret that they are owned by the oil companies. ^.^

Look at the numbers; oil company donations were roughly equal to both major parties.

coolclay

I am glad someone is at least treating BP kindly. Yea, they cut corners, the same corners that everyone else is cutting for the quest of cheap oil. They just happen to be the scapegoats. Like I have stated before we are all to blame for this accident because we are all addicted to cheap oil, and to provide cheap oil corners were cut. I commend BP for having the fortitude to state that they will do everything within their power to repay people for their losses, and all that jazz but they can only do so much. Treating them like the most repulsive company on the planet, and "shaking them down" isn't right. I noticed most of our local BP stations have covered up their signs and their names with hope that people won't realize who they are and still purchase they're gas. This whole "boycott" thing is most certainly not helping anyone, especially not the spill.

Alaskacameradude

Quote:

I commend BP for having the fortitude to state that they will do everything within their power to repay people for their losses, and all that jazz but they can only do so much.

I give them MAJOR props for that. When the oil spill here in Alaska happened, Exxon (whose
name shall ALWAYS be mud to Alaskans forevermore...) dragged out court proceeding so long,
that a large number of the plantiffs had actually DIED before any settlement was reached.
Want to talk about mad, I personally know several Republican lawmakers who wanted to
either BAN Exxon from Alaska or charge them a higher tax than any other oil company.
Of course that was against the constitution, but you should just see the reception
Exxon executives get in the state capitol of Alaska now. They are not well liked, and a
good way to kill a bill, is to have Exxon lobbying for it. So to stand up and take
responsibility is a good thing that BP is doing. I feel for all the fishermen and those
who make their living in the Gulf. First the crappy economy, now this.....yikes.

handfleisch

Alaskacameradude wrote:

Quote:

I commend BP for having the fortitude to state that they will do everything within their power to repay people for their losses, and all that jazz but they can only do so much.

I give them MAJOR props for that. When the oil spill here in Alaska happened, Exxon (whose
name shall ALWAYS be mud to Alaskans forevermore...) dragged out court proceeding so long,
that a large number of the plantiffs had actually DIED before any settlement was reached.

Props? Fortitude? There's a big difference between BP saying they will repay people and actually doing it. It doesn't take any fortitude at all to issue a statement. I am sure that Exxon also issued PR statements about how good and responsible they would be before using their lawyers to screw the victims.

Alaskacameradude

Quote:

I am sure that Exxon also issued PR statements about how good and responsible they would be before using their lawyers to screw the victims.

Oh REALLY? How sure are you? BP has apparently made statements about how they intend to
repay victims. Exxon on the other hand made statements about how they would 'clean up
the problem quickly' and such, but if you can link to any statements they made about actually
REPAYING the victims, I'd like to see it (and I'm not talking about AFTER it went to court, but
right after the disaster happened). There's a difference between making PR statements
about how we are 'quickly cleaning up' and making a public statement that we intend to
actually give monetary compensation to the victims. I mean, I know what you are saying...
PR is talk and talk is cheap, but I'm telling you, they are being infinitely better about it so
far than Exxon was. Hopefully they back up their words with the appropriate actions.

deanhills

To play devil's advocate here, all of the oil companies probably learned from the Exxon disaster what NOT to do. I wonder whether they all have developed manifests for dealing with similar disasters in future, so may have been better prepared than Exxon was in reacting the way BP did. The real proof of course will be in making those payments swiftly. None of that is going to be simple of course, but who knows, hopefully BP learned some lessons from the Exxon example, not to drag those court cases out for too long. To keep it simple, if that is at all possible. But then the US being a country of complicated litigation is probably going to create challenges for BP to do things fast. For example, I'm sure States on the East Coast who have been importing fish for their restaurants from the Gulf, may also be thinking up claims. I have a feeling that if those claims are drawn out, that it could be because of the litigation system of the US. BP would obviously have to defend itself against certain of the claims that are going to be made, so probably the die has already been cast for lengthy litigation.

Alaskacameradude

Quote:

To play devil's advocate here, all of the oil companies probably learned from the Exxon disaster what NOT to do

Dude, you are NOT kidding!! Exxon handled it about as bad as it ever could be done, and if you
just 'did the opposite of Exxon' you'd probably come out with a halfway decent plan! I certainly
agree that talk is cheap, and it is yet to be seen if BP will do the right thing! My only point was,
at least to this point, they are doing INFINITELY better than Exxon (which as you pointed out,
is not exactly the highest of bars to measure yourself against.....indeed it would be almost
impossible to NOT do infinitely better than Exxon!!!) We will see, for the sake of all the poor
people in the Gulf Coast who had their lives ruined, I hope BP comes through.

Bikerman

It looks promising. I'm a bit concerned that the pressure is well below expectation - that could mean a secondary leak elsewhere on the seabed, but it looks good as of now....let us hope that the rest of the operation proceeds smoothly now that the oil is at least temporarily stopped.